Monday, August 22, 2011

The NSF Inspector General has presented another certificate for not committing research misconduct to Michael Mann. Read the report, and Joe Romm, Richard Littlemore, the weasel, and more. Eli expects the spin cycle has started over at the auditorium. One interesting thing is that from the report it is clear that the NSF IG spoke to the M&Ms and friends. Of further interest it is to be speculated that they may have spoken to Prof. Wegman. The IG pretty much came down where Gerry North and Eli were

The research in question was originally completed over 10 years age. Although the Subject's data is still available and still the focus of significant critical examination, no direct evidence has been presented that indicates the Subject fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified his results. Much of the current debate focuses on the viability of the statistical procedures he employed, the statistics used to confirm the accuracy of the results, and the degree to which one specific set of data impacts the statistical results. These concerns are all appropriate for scientific debate and to assist the research community in directing future research efforts to improve understanding in this field of research. Such scientific debate is ongoing, but does not, in itself, constitute evidence of research misconduct

For Mr. Cuccinelli,

Concerning False Claims, 18 USC #287 and 31 USC ##3729-33 and False Statement, 18 USC #1001, we examined the elements of each suggested offense and have concluded that there is insufficient evidence of violation of any of these statutes to warrant investigation.

The CRU email folks

We reviewed the emails and concluded that nothing contained in them evidenced research misconduct withing the definition of the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation. The University had been provided an extensive volume of emails from the Subject and determined that the emails had not been deleted. We found no basis to conclude that the emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence.

36 comments:

Expect "direct" and "insufficient" to magically catalyze hundreds of thousands of words from thin air! Just a few syllables are all the material necessary for the gasbag of a majestic blimp of speculation.

Here's a Faux News "Blast from the Past": http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/06/climate-gate-michael-mann/

Juicy bits:When a Penn State board of inquiry unilaterally decided that Michael Mann had broken no rules in the climate-data scandal, global-warming alarmists breathed a sigh of relief, thinking the most damaging episode in their effort to save the planet was behind them. They were wrong...........Despite ongoing criticism, the study formed the backbone of global warming theories -- until leaked e-mails cast fresh doubt on Mann's methodology and integrity, notably "the trick" he used to make his data so compelling............But the final say will be in the hands of a skeptical inspector general at the National Science Foundation, the primary funder of the research into global warming............Documents sent to Fox by insiders at the National Science Foundation's Inspectors Office indicate that the office is also concerned about the Penn State inquiry and is looking to review the investigation.............In other words, once the Penn State inquiry is over, the inspector general will likely step in. And if it does, it will be the first time that climate studies here will be scrutinized by an independent government organization with the skill and tools to investigate effectively.

I would like to be wrong, but I think nothing will change. Most of the septics out there will only accept the outcome they have already decided. Great for Mann, but the mantra "Climategate shows that data were fabricated and that scientists are corrupted persons" wll follow, no doubt about that.

HO HO HO. So let me get this straight, Eli. When I looked at H.H Lamb's temperature reconstruction and note that Michael Mann's is completely different, that is spin to you, huh? Since Mann was exonerated of any wrongdoing even though it is very clear he cheated, what's next, Eli? How about he goes back and totally changes the temperature data during the age of the dinosaurs. After all, Mann the man has carte blanche to revise history all he wants. Your defense is shameful.

Hey, what did you expect from someone not even understanding how a greenhouse works ? An urban specie for sure, this "phd" Cadburydium :]

Points go for Dhogaza, of course, he was the first to shoot. Must be because he went to far into wattasshatery and begins to be tainted, although he tries to stay sane by visiting lots of clean sites :]

"For the logicly challenged, this means Mann's reconstructions ( and everyboby else's) are completely in agreement with Lamb."

Okay well I see everyone is just going to attack me for calling out Michael Mann.

@John McManus

I totally agree, John, and that's exactly why Lamb's graph is completely different than Mann's. Mann ate the Lamb, McManus.

Side note: I'd like an explanation of the recent article from James Hansen about coal being the worst fossil fuel. I didn't catch any posts here about the recent study claiming Chinese coal emissions blocked warming. What is everyone's take on these contradicting stories?

'Side note: I'd like an explanation of the recent article from James Hansen about coal being the worst fossil fuel. I didn't catch any posts here about the recent study claiming Chinese coal emissions blocked warming. What is everyone's take on these contradicting stories?'

No contradictions unless you wish to talk about apples whilst we are considering oranges and think of the short term effects whilst Hansen is considering the long term.

No doubt they are busy trying to figure out how to spin it. My bet is they switch to the ATI email release in their ever lasting quest to maintain the semelence of a permanent invesigation.

Bingo!

From the number 1 science blog in the world:

"Via email I’m getting reports that the American Tradition Institute has a CD ROM of the Mann University of Virginia emails in hand and are evaluating them.

They are in a 4.3 Megabyte file consisting of 3,827 pages.

Given the suspicious timing of the recent Mann “vindication” report (PDF) from an investigation by the National Science Foundation, I think the effort will be likely to be focused on “what wasn’t released”"

ATI has the disc, but they also have huge problems if they say anything about the emails before the court agrees. One of the things to watch is if any hints show up on the blogs that ATI has blown the confidentiality agreement. Eli would be happy to make problems for them.

thanks to caerbannog's comment this was posted: http://community.nytimes.com/comments/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/federal-inquiry-is-latest-to-clear-assailed-climate-scientist/?permid=20#comment20

which I think resulted in this: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/24/wheres-fox-followup-on-climate-inquiry/

and just maybe that forced this (no timestamp hard to tell):http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/08/24/national-science-foundation-clears-climate-change-researcher/

ATI has two sets of documents, those which are not claimed to be exempt from FOIA and those that are. IIRC, they are free to say whatever they want about those which are not claimed to be exempt from FOIA, they are only gagged on those which are claimed to be exempt.

Two full business days and not a peep from the ATI, even though they promised to make a press release yesterday laying out what they had found. You don't suppose it could be because there is nothing there, could it?

Rabett Run

Subscribe Rabett Run

The Bunny Trail By Email

Contributors

Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett is a not quite failed professorial techno-bunny, a chair election from retirement, at a wanna be research university that has a lot to be proud of but has swallowed the Kool-Aid. The students are naive but great and the administrators vary day-to-day between homicidal and delusional. His colleagues are smart, but they have a curious inability to see the holes that they dig for themselves. Prof. Rabett is thankful that they occasionally heed his pointing out the implications of the various enthusiasms that rattle around the department and school. Ms. Rabett is thankful that Prof. Rabett occasionally heeds her pointing out that he is nuts.